USA needs to significantly spend less
Debate Rounds (3)
if you look at the experts, we see the congressional budget office, and plenty of current and former administraters in that and realted organizations that say the same thing. a noteable name comptroller david walker. our triple A rating has been downgraded a notch, and they warn us it could be more if we don't get our affairs in order. china is warning us that we need to get our affairs in order.
only people like paul krugman argue it is not a big deal. he probably does this mostly to be a contrarian and get attention. he argues for keysian econonomics, that we can grow ourselves out by spending more.
while keynesian econ has some merit to it, it's not applicable now. that theory says when we are in a recession we should spend so as to stimulate. now, we are not in recession, and while we are not optimal, i would argue it's the new normal. employment won't go down more, cause our economic structure doesn't need that many people working. and similar arguments could be made about other economic indicators.
the measure of how much we should spend is often GDP v debt. we are about 75% debt to GDP, and the highest it has been was around WWII. what makes now different, is that the country was developing, and had a marked advanged over less developed and war torn counties. that allowed them to pull themselves out of the mire. now, we dont have things like that to pull us out.
also, probably a better measure, is that we should compare debt to national revenue. if we continue to grow in debt, we revenue won't increase in proportion.
also, within maybe thirty or so years, interest on the debt will eat out much of other spending, even to the detriment of entitlement spending.
i'm not saying we are beyond the point of no return. but we are getting there. things need to shape up. we can't keep spending like a drunken sailor.
The topic of the debate is whether or not the United States of America needs to spend significantly less.
Definition of need: A requirement,necessary duty,or obligation 
If I can prove that it is neither required, necessary, nor an obligation to cut spending, Pro loses the debate.
Definition of significantly: in a sufficiently great or important way as to be worthy of attention 
"our debt is out of control"
Pro claims that our debt is out of control, yet states (at the end) "I'm not saying we are beyond the point of no return."This is a contradiction. Either we have control over the debt or we don't.
"the experts" "realted organizations" "they"
Who are these people that Pro is using as sources?
"only people like paul krugman argue it is not a big deal. he probably does this mostly to be a contrarian and get attention."
Pro is engaging in pure speculation here. Also, what defines being like Paul Krugman? Krugman has side burns, a small beard, and a mustache. He's also white and went to Yale. Is Pro claiming that only white Yale graduates with facial hair argue for Keynesian economics?
Jokes aside, Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist . I'm inclined to take his word over Pro's word.
"what makes now different, is that the country was developing"
Is the country not developing anymore? Of course it is. This claim is ridiculous.
"if we continue to grow in debt, we revenue won't increase in proportion."
I take it Pro doesn't economics much.
"within maybe thirty or so years, interest on the debt will eat out much of other spending, even to the detriment of entitlement spending."
"things need to shape up. we can't keep spending like a drunken sailor."
How much do drunken sailors spend? We can actually do math to figure this out. An E-1 Naval Officer in the United States Navy earns $1,447.20 per month . That's $17,366.40 per year without bonuses or benefits. The average cost of a beer in the USA is around $3.82 . In the United States, .08 is when you are legally considered drunk . This number comes earlier or later for people of different weights. I'll assume that a Navy sailor will be larger than most males. Therefore I will determine that the sailor in question weighs 220 pounds (99.7 kg, 15.7 stone). It takes a 220 pound man 5 drinks (one shot of liquor, one glass of wine, one bottle of beer). to become legally drunk. Afterwords, it takes another five to reach a BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) of .19. Any bartender worth his salt will cut off the sailor at this point. After adding the taxi fair (the sailor lives $8 fair away) to get home, that amounts to $27.10 respectively. That amounts to 0.0016% of his budget. Drunken sailors actually spend pretty responsibly.
Here comes the moment of truth. If I can find one single reasonable alternative to Pro's proposed spending cuts, I win the debate.
We should get tough on corporations. As a country, we lose billions of dollars on corporate tax evaders . Many corporations store a lot of their money overseas, in order to avoid it being taxed. In fact, many companies pay no taxes whatsoever . Even Mitt Romney has money in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes on it. Can anybody believe that he almost became president?
I argue that we close the loopholes. That will bring in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue, without any spending cuts.
As we can see in this chart , 65% of all spending is mandatory spending like Medicare/Medicaid. Only 29% of all spending can be altered. Cutting the discretionary(alterable) budget has almost no impact on the debt. The way to save the economy is to increase revenue, not cut spending.
Obviously, we do not absolutely need to cut spending. Sorry Pro, but your claim has been disproven.
fair enough. i should have said we are 'getting' out of control with spending.
"the experts' 'they'
i didnt just refer to these people. i referred to the CBO, david, china, credit agencies, etc.
"a Nobel Prize winning economist"
i cited professional sources that include nobel prize winners. this is an appeal to authority from con.
'developed v developing'
it is not unheard of call the USA developed, as compared to other 'developing nations'. to apply that logic to whether we are different or not after WWII v now is not far fetched. con's contentions here are idiotic.
con is taking a figure of speech too far. he's taking what should be obviously true, and twisting it, as he is basically doing with this whole debate. given it is obviously true that our spending habits as a nation is a problem.
suffice it to say, if we don't change our spending, our debt to GDP levels will be way out of whack and unprecedented. if we got to two hundred percent then what? it's just good common sense to stay within your means, yet con wants to argue that we aren't in troubled times, yet doesnt want to say when troubled times would actually exist. he avoids the issue. i know the onus is on me to make the case, but con is being lax and lazy if he takes that approach. as to a danger point, where is the magic line, where is the cut off an why, if not now or sooner than later? and why not sooner than later?
"This is an appeal to authority from con."
Of course it is. Who would you trust to perform surgery on you? An award winning doctor, or some guy with an opinion on how you should be cut open?
"Con's contentions here are idiotic."
Ouch. I wasn't aware that not being familiar with a certain phrase meant I was an idiot. Is it too hard to explain what the phrase means? Pro stated that "it's not unheard of". That doesn't mean that there aren't people who haven't heard it.
"He's taking what should be obviously true, and twisting it, as he is basically doing with this whole debate. Given it is obviously true that our spending habits as a nation is a problem."
This debate is not about whether or not our spending habits are a problem. This debate is whether or not we need to spend significantly less. I'm debating against the resolution, not Pro's claims. By the way, Pro has not provided a real argument during this entire debate.
"It's just good common sense to stay within your means, yet con wants to argue that we aren't in troubled times, yet doesnt want to say when troubled times would actually exist."
First off get that straw man out of here. I never said we are not in troubled times. I offered an alternative to cutting spending. Also, why would I say when troubled times exist? That's the job of Pro to introduce that argument.
"he avoids the issue"
Where did I avoid the issue?
"I know the onus is on me to make the case,"
Yes it is.
"but con is being lax and lazy if he takes that approach"
"as to a danger point, where is the magic line, where is the cut off an why, if not now or sooner than later? and why not sooner than later?"
There is no magic line. Frankly I believe in more taxes to help the economy become solvent, but that is a debate for another time.
In summary, I believe that Pro has not met his burden of proof that "USA needs to significantly spend less." I offered an alternative solution, and given the fact that Pro has not refuted the alternative solution, it still stands.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's attempt to shift the burden of proof onto Con and call him "lazy". For that I award conduct. And because of that (failed) shifting, Pro never really justified his own position sufficiently. It's not on Con to make the case for you, or to tell you where the "line" is. It's on you, Pro, to make your own case coherently--he only has to *respond* to your attempts to do so. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.